Lawmakers on Sunday took a swipe at the Appellate Division for its verdict that dismissed a government appeal against a High Court verdict scrapping the 16th Amendment to the constitution which had empowered Jatiya Sangsad to remove Supreme Court judges for misbehaviour or incapacity.
Standing on points order, they termed the verdict ‘unexpected’ and said that the Supreme Court had to prove how the parliament
‘challenged the basic structure’ of the constitution framed in 1972.
They also criticised the amici curiae for opposing the empowerment of parliament to remove Supreme Court judges.
They alleged that the amici curiae provided ‘false and fabricated’ information to the court as they were ‘opportunists’.
They also asked how Supreme Court judges could adjudicate on their own misconduct or incapacity.
They said that generally the country that followed parliamentary democracy did not have the provisions of Supreme Judicial Council to remove judges for misconduct or incapacity rather parliament was given the power.
They said that parliament could impeach the president, the speaker, the prime minister, what was the problem with the removal of the Supreme Court judges.
The Appellate Division on July 3 dismissed the government appeal against a High Court verdict that had scrapped the 16th amendment to the constitution which empowered Jatiya Sangsad to remove Supreme Court judges for misbehaviour or incapacity.
On May 5, 2016, the High Court declared the 16th amendment to the constitution, made in 2014, unconstitutional stating that ‘the Sixteenth Amendment is a colourable legislation and is violative of separation of powers among the three organs of the State, namely, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary and independence of the judiciary as guaranteed by Articles 94(4) and 147(2), two basic structures of the constitution and the same are also hit by Article 7B of the constitution.’
Initiative the unscheduled discussion, Jatiya Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal faction lawmaker Moin Uddin Khan Badal said, ‘They [the Appellate Division] should make clear how the parliamentarians have challenged the basic structures of the constitution.’
An apex court verdict has declared military dictator Ziaur Rahman’s rule illegal, how the court now can restore the provisions of of Supreme Judicial Council introduced by the dictator, Badal said.
‘By the 16th amendment we had restored the provisions stipulated in the original Article 96 framed in 1972 empowering parliament to remove Supreme Court judges,’ he said.
The 5th amendment to the constitution, during the rule of Ziaur Rahman, retained the power of the president to remove Supreme Court judges subject to recommendation made by the Supreme Judicial Council.
Commerce minister Tofail Ahmed, Jatiya Party lawmaker Ziauddin Ahmed Bablu and Moin Uddin Khan Badal asked what was the problem with keeping the power to remove of the Supreme Court judges with the parliament, as it had the power to impeach the president, the speaker, the prime minister.
Tofail alleged that amici curiae who opposed the 16th amendment had provided ‘false and fabricated’ information to the court as they were ‘opportunists’.
He said that jurist Kamal Hossain said that India did not follow the system of impeachment of the judges by parliament. ‘But truth is that Indian parliament has the power to remove judge.’
Tofail also said that another amicus curiae Amir Ul Islam said that no country followed the system impeachment of judges by parliament. ‘I have no words to condemn their activities.’
Ruling Awami League lawmaker Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim said that all knew that judiciary was independent but how long their hand was. Hands of judiciary are not longer than that of the parliament.
People who are opposing the 16th amendment of constitution are trying to create a conflict between parliament and judiciary, Selim said.
If the parliament does not implement the verdict, it would not come into effect, Selim said, adding that the parliament would take just stance.
Civil aviation and tourism minister Rashed Khan Menon said that vested interests were trying to create division between the parliament and the judiciary. ‘You cannot rule out that it is a part of larger conspiracy,’ said Menon, also the Workers Party of Bangladesh president.
He said that Ayub Khan introduced the Supreme Judicial Council.
Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim, Jatiya Party lawmaker Zaiuddin Ahmed and AL lawmaker Ali Ashraf demanded that Appellate Division verdict should be reviewed and the 16th amendment should be restored.
Agriculture minister Matia Chowdhury said that at least on four occasions the Supreme Judicial Councils did not find the allegations of misconduct against judges true.
‘Few months ago, additional registrar on the order of chief justice asked not to investigate an allegation raised by the Anti-Corruption Commission against an Appellate Division judge,’ she alleged.
She said that a judge had circulated leaflets that urged authorities to stop war crimes trial, another judge had undermined Rabindranath Tagore but the Supreme Judicial Council found no misconduct.
Matia alleged that the Supreme Judicial Council also failed to find misconduct and irregularities alleged against a justice who forged his LLB certificate. The justice however resigned.
Information minister Hasanul Haq Inu said that the verdict was somehow ‘motivated’ and ‘part of conspiracy’.
Inu, also the Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal faction president, said that the verdict was pronounced when the country was in a war against extremism.
Bangladesh Nationalist Front lawmaker SM Abul Kalam Azad said that the verdict forecasted a constitutional crisis. ‘It is a judicial inference on the legislative organ and parliament is not obliged to go by it.’
According to the constitution, people are the owner of the state and source of power of the country and the parliament is elected by the people, the lawmakers said.
Speaker Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury said that the discussion on the 16th Amendment was very important. ‘There would be scope for holding further discussions on the matter on a specific day,’ she added.
Source: New Age
